Background

In 30 states, women who have had screening mammography are informed of their breast density on the basis of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density categories estimated subjectively by radiologists. Variation in these clinical categories across and within radiologists has led to discussion about whether automated BI-RADS density should be reported instead.

Objective

To determine whether breast cancer risk and detection are similar for automated and clinical BI-RADS density measures.

Design

Case-control.

Setting

San Francisco Mammography Registry and Mayo Clinic.

Participants

1609 women with screen-detected cancer, 351 women with interval invasive cancer, and 4409 matched control participants.

Measurements

Automated and clinical BI-RADS density assessed on digital mammography at 2 time points from September 2006 to October 2014, interval and screen-detected breast cancer risk, and mammography sensitivity.

Results

Of women whose breast density was categorized by automated BI-RADS more than 6 months to 5 years before diagnosis, those with extremely dense breasts had a 5.65-fold higher interval cancer risk (95% CI, 3.33 to 9.60) and a 1.43-fold higher screen-detected risk (CI, 1.14 to 1.79) than those with scattered fibroglandular densities. Associations of interval and screen-detected cancer with clinical BI-RADS density were similar to those with automated BI-RADS density, regardless of whether density was measured more than 6 months to less than 2 years or 2 to 5 years before diagnosis. Automated and clinical BI-RADS density measures had similar discriminatory accuracy, which was higher for interval than screen-detected cancer (c-statistics: 0.70 vs. 0.62 [P < 0.001] and 0.72 vs. 0.62 [P < 0.001], respectively). Mammography sensitivity was similar for automated and clinical BI-RADS categories: fatty, 93% versus 92%; scattered fibroglandular densities, 90% versus 90%; heterogeneously dense, 82% versus 78%; and extremely dense, 63% versus 64%, respectively.

Limitation

Neither automated nor clinical BI-RADS density was assessed on tomosynthesis, an emerging breast screening method.

Conclusion

Automated and clinical BI-RADS density similarly predict interval and screen-detected cancer risk, suggesting that either measure may be used to inform women of their breast density.

Primary funding source

National Cancer Institute.

Background

Though mammographic density (MD) has been proposed as an intermediate marker of breast cancer risk, few studies have examined whether the associations between breast cancer risk factors and risk are mediated by MD, particularly by tumor characteristics.

Methods

Our study population included 3392 cases (1105 premenopausal) and 8882 (3192 premenopausal) controls from four case-control studies. For established risk factors, we estimated the percent of the total risk factor association with breast cancer that was mediated by percent MD (secondarily, by dense area and non-dense area) for invasive breast cancer as well as for subtypes defined by the estrogen receptor (ER+/ER-), progesterone receptor (PR+/PR-), and HER2 (HER2+/HER2-). Analyses were conducted separately in pre- and postmenopausal women.

Results

Positive associations between prior breast biopsy and risk of invasive breast cancer as well as all subtypes were partially mediated by percent MD in pre- and postmenopausal women (percent mediated = 11-27%, p ≤ 0.02). In postmenopausal women, nulliparity and hormone therapy use were positively associated with invasive, ER+ , PR+ , and HER2- breast cancer; percent MD partially mediated these associations (percent mediated ≥ 31%, p ≤ 0.02). Further, among postmenopausal women, percent MD partially mediated the positive association between later age at first birth and invasive as well as ER+ breast cancer (percent mediated = 16%, p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusion

Percent MD partially mediated the associations between breast biopsy, nulliparity, age at first birth, and hormone therapy with risk of breast cancer, particularly among postmenopausal women, suggesting that these risk factors at least partially influence breast cancer risk through changes in breast tissue composition.

Background: Reductions in breast density with tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors may be an intermediate marker of treatment response. We compare changes in volumetric breast density among breast cancer cases using tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors (AI) to untreated women without breast cancer.Methods: Breast cancer cases with a digital mammogram prior to diagnosis and after initiation of tamoxifen (n = 366) or AI (n = 403) and a sample of controls (n = 2170) were identified from the Mayo Clinic Mammography Practice and San Francisco Mammography Registry. Volumetric percent density (VPD) and dense breast volume (DV) were measured using Volpara (Matakina Technology) and Quantra (Hologic) software. Linear regression estimated the effect of treatment on annualized changes in density.Results: Premenopausal women using tamoxifen experienced annualized declines in VPD of 1.17% to 1.70% compared with 0.30% to 0.56% for controls and declines in DV of 7.43 to 15.13 cm³ compared with 0.28 to 0.63 cm³ in controls, for Volpara and Quantra, respectively. The greatest reductions were observed among women with ≥10% baseline density. Postmenopausal AI users had greater declines in VPD than controls (Volpara P = 0.02; Quantra P = 0.03), and reductions were greatest among women with ≥10% baseline density. Declines in VPD among postmenopausal women using tamoxifen were only statistically greater than controls when measured with Quantra.Conclusions: Automated software can detect volumetric breast density changes among women on tamoxifen and AI.Impact: If declines in volumetric density predict breast cancer outcomes, these measures may be used as interim prognostic indicators. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(6); 930-7. ©2017 AACR.

Background

Mammographic breast density declines during menopause. We assessed changes in volumetric breast density across the menopausal transition and factors that influence these changes.

Methods

Women without a history of breast cancer, who had full field digital mammograms during both pre- and postmenopausal periods, at least 2 years apart, were sampled from four facilities within the San Francisco Mammography Registry from 2007 to 2013. Dense breast volume (DV) was assessed using Volpara on mammograms across the time period. Annualized change in DV from pre- to postmenopause was estimated using linear mixed models adjusted for covariates and per-woman random effects. Multiplicative interactions were evaluated between premenopausal risk factors and time to determine whether these covariates modified the annualized changes.

Results

Among the 2,586 eligible women, 1,802 had one premenopausal and one postmenopausal mammogram, 628 had an additional perimenopausal mammogram, and 156 had two perimenopausal mammograms. Women experienced an annualized decrease in DV [-2.2 cm³ (95% confidence interval, -2.7 to -1.7)] over the menopausal transition. Declines were greater among women with a premenopausal DV above the median (54 cm³) versus below (DV, -3.5 cm³ vs. -1.0 cm³; P < 0.0001). Other breast cancer risk factors, including race, body mass index, family history, alcohol, and postmenopausal hormone therapy, had no effect on change in DV over the menopausal transition.

Conclusions

High premenopausal DV was a strong predictor of greater reductions in DV across the menopausal transition.

Impact

We found that few factors other than premenopausal density influence changes in DV across the menopausal transition, limiting targeted prevention efforts.

Background

Mammographic density (MD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor. We previously reported associations of percent mammographic density (PMD) with larger and node-positive tumors across all ages, and estrogen receptor (ER)-negative status among women ages <55 years. To provide insight into these associations, we examined the components of PMD [dense area (DA) and nondense area (NDA)] with breast cancer subtypes.

Methods

Data were pooled from six studies including 4,095 breast cancers and 8,558 controls. DA and NDA were assessed from digitized film-screen mammograms and standardized across studies. Breast cancer odds by density phenotypes and age according to histopathologic characteristics and receptor status were calculated using polytomous logistic regression.

Results

DA was associated with increased breast cancer risk [OR for quartiles: 0.65, 1.00 (Ref), 1.22, 1.55; P(trend) <0.001] and NDA was associated with decreased risk [ORs for quartiles: 1.39, 1.00 (Ref), 0.88, 0.72; P(trend) <0.001] across all ages and invasive tumor characteristics. There were significant trends in the magnitude of associations of both DA and NDA with breast cancer by increasing tumor size (P(trend) < 0.001) but no differences by nodal status. Among women <55 years, DA was more strongly associated with increased risk of ER(+) versus ER(-) tumors (P(het) = 0.02), while NDA was more strongly associated with decreased risk of ER(-) versus ER(+) tumors (P(het) = 0.03).

Conclusions

DA and NDA have differential associations with ER(+) versus ER(-) tumors that vary by age.

Impact

DA and NDA are important to consider when developing age- and subtype-specific risk models.

Background

Given that breast cancer and normal dense fibroglandular tissue have similar radiographic attenuation, we examine whether automated volumetric density measures identify a differential change between breasts in women with cancer and compare to healthy controls.

Methods

Eligible cases (n = 1160) had unilateral invasive breast cancer and bilateral full-field digital mammograms (FFDMs) at two time points: within 2 months and 1-5 years before diagnosis. Controls (n = 2360) were matched to cases on age and date of FFDMs. Dense volume (DV) and volumetric percent density (VPD) for each breast were assessed using Volpara™. Differences in DV and VPD between mammograms (median 3 years apart) were calculated per breast separately for cases and controls and their difference evaluated by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. To simulate clinical practice where cancer laterality is unknown, we examined whether the absolute difference between breasts can discriminate cases from controls using area under the ROC curve (AUC) analysis, adjusting for age, BMI, and time.

Results

Among cases, the VPD and DV between mammograms of the cancerous breast decreased to a lesser degree (- 0.26% and - 2.10 cm³) than the normal breast (- 0.39% and - 2.74 cm³) for a difference of 0.13% (p value < 0.001) and 0.63 cm³ (p = 0.002), respectively. Among controls, the differences between breasts were nearly identical for VPD (- 0.02 [p = 0.92]) and DV (0.05 [p = 0.77]). The AUC for discriminating cases from controls using absolute difference between breasts was 0.54 (95% CI 0.52, 0.56) for VPD and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.54, 0.58) for DV.

Conclusion

There is a small relative increase in volumetric density measures over time in the breast with cancer which is not found in the normal breast. However, the magnitude of this difference is small, and this measure alone does not appear to be a good discriminator between women with and without breast cancer.